posted
I think we need a thread just to discuss the latest debates that reach the Supreme Court.
Let me begin by stating that the media totally blew this one.
A young woman was arrested for meth possesion in Missouri. She went on a 24 week crash sobriety course and was released on parole.
She skipped her parole and went to California. There she was re-arrested. While out on parole she got pregnant. She arranged to have an abortion in California, but was sent back to Missouri before it could happen.
At about this time the new Conservative administration in Missouri changed the rules. [QUOTE]Missouri officials amended prison rules to prohibit trips for abortions, funerals and visits to ill relatives - citing costs and security concerns. [/QUOTE
She sued the state to get the abortion. It went through the courts quickly. Finally Judge Thomas wrote a stay, not allowing the abortion, late last week. After some discussion over the weekend the stay was lifted and now the young lady will get her abortion.
Their argument was that since Abortions were a legal medical procedure, the inmate was entitled to one.
I am unsure of their reasoning.
I found the state's reasoning even more confusing. I heard about this last night on the way home from work, and it just struck me what was wrong with the state's argument.
The state was arguing that they were denying the abortion to save money. Someone gave a cost of $350, that included transportation of the inmate, security, and the procedure. That seemed low to me, so multiply it by 2, or 4, or 10. That is still less expensive that providing the inmate with prenatal care, obstecrician services, the cost of delivery and care of the child before it is given away to family, adopted away, or most likely goes to family services. One of the reasons abortions are preferred by those in poverty is that they are a cheaper alternative.
I am not saying anything about the moral implications of abortion, because the state isn't. From a purely fiscal position, it doesn't make sense.
AND NO ONE IN THE PRESS IS QUESTIONING IT!
All we get is, "oh yes, this is a cost the poor state shouldn't have to absorb." No one has yet brought up the cost of the alternatives.
Rant over.
Feel free to comment on rant, or case, or bring up good new SCOTUS cases to be debated. After all, we are all smarter than 9 (soon to be 9 anyway) picked experts.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, it's the article you linked that's getting it wrong. The state has always been upfront about the purpose of the law. From the Post:
quote:In seeking emergency Supreme Court intervention, Missouri had asked Thomas to give "heavy consideration" to its policy of "discourag[ing] abortions and encourag[ing] childbirth."
But the state had a heavy legal burden: to show that it would face "irreparable harm" if it had to transport the woman. The state said that it would lose the $350 cost of a day's prison guard salaries, as well as run the risk of an escape or injury to the prisoner, public or guards.
The federal district judge who initially ordered Roe transported for an abortion, Dean Whipple, has said that his ruling covered only the Missouri policy as it applied to her, and that he will hear arguments and decide the constitutionality of the policy generally later this fall.
Missouri's Department of Corrections put the new policy into effect July 19, in response to criticism from antiabortion state legislators, state officials said. The legislators had said that the use of state-paid guards and vehicles to transport a prisoner to an abortion clinic violated the state's abortion law, which says that "no state money, employees in the course of their employment, or facilities are to be used for abortions except abortions performed to save a woman's life."
Also under the law, which was adopted in 1986, no state money, employees, or facilities are to be used "for the purpose of encouraging or counseling a woman to have an abortion not necessary to save her life."
The first quoted paragraph contains quotes from Missouri's official request to Thomas. I can't find the entire thing. There is no factual basis for you to say "I am not saying anything about the moral implications of abortion, because the state isn't."
I could go into a rant of my own pretty easily here, but I'll refrain.
Just realize that if the media is screwing up here, it's almost in the opposite way from that which you complain about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
